Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 65
  1. #1
    Activated Node
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Utah, United States
    Posts
    43

    How to solve the problem that is gamergate

    This is in reply to QuantaCat - I did not want to hijack the discussion HERE but I did want to start a topic on how to solve the problems with gamergate. I thought this topic more suitable for the moderation section. Feel free to move it, Merge it, Bop it, whatever.

    Quote Originally Posted by QuantaCat View Post
    All the GGers are dead. I killed em. Jim possibly got the last one by killing off whatsisface with the gifs and graphs. (He was killed for other things though)


    There is no need for a witchhunt, and I will always be careful before banning/kicking or whatevering anyone who just has a different opinion than me. There is a line, and that line must never be crossed. The line itself is hard to see most of the time, but it is there, waiting, judging. cue picard gif.


    Let me illustrate, but not really because that would mean opening photoshop and Im too lazy for that right now:


    Complaining about something - a-ok
    Criticising someone because theyre a critic but also happen to be randomly sleeping with developers or publishers - nuhuh
    Complaining about publishers and their waivering morality - a-ok
    Critisizing a reviewer that is writing about a certain product, while publically having a close relationship with producers of said product - a-ok
    Going out of your way to insult anyone with a moral stance even not covered by the rules - nuhuh
    GamerGate needs to go and this is coming from someone who has seen the struggle from both sides. That said not all GGers are dicks. I know some. Allot of them are really nice. To the point that I would call them my friends.

    I know some Game artists that are pro GG. Very talented people and very nice people.
    But in order for Gamergate to go it needs to be talked about openly and not condemned. Otherwise you will be just reinforcing the Streisand effect which has been echoing the halls of the internet in the form of gamergate.

    Because at the end of the day these are people who just want honest coverage of games that they are going to buy with their money. They want to know that the game that they are buying is getting an honest review and Is a good game. Not some cobbled together half finished game.

    There is allot of built up tension right now between Gamergate, Anti-Gamergate and the game press.
    Lets end gamergate by talking out our differences and while still being excellent to each other.

    What harm could it do?

    If some one gets out of line by posting personal information you have the tools and knowledge of what to do.

    Anyway just my opinion.

    TL;DR - If you want gamergate to go away just let people talk freely. Listen to their feedback. But have them keep the forum rules in mind at all times.

  2. #2
    Moderator Anthile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    People's Republic of Germany
    Posts
    2,845
    No, that's not how it works. Tolerating the intolerant has never resulted in more tolerance. That's a folly - the intent of the intolerant is always to silence tolerance.
    Gamersgate is not a pro-consumer movement. It never was, and it never will be. Perhaps some people who associate with them actually believe it is but that doesn't change matters. Maybe you should do your damn research before joining a movement. It's not that they have ever been subtle in their views.
    Old hat! A Steam curator page focusing on Immersive Sims WIP
    Antique! The Fall of Infinite Games 2014 - A handy release schedule for the dark season.
    Recently updated! Thrust Issues: A Marvelous Guide to Fencing in Dark Souls 2

    to wound the autumnal city.

  3. #3
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Stockton-on-Tees, UK
    Posts
    2,557
    In my opinion the forum should introduce a rule that anyone who directly refers to Gamergate and/or Gamergaters has their post removed and repeated violations leads to a ban. I'd make an exemption for specific cases where in passing undisputed facts have emerged, such as in the PC Gamer case, but even in such cases specific reference to Gamergate should be deleted. The justification is that almost all the of GG-related discussion is nonsense and forum-polluting, but true facts should always be up for discussion.

    Further, any users whose post count is mostly in controversy-threads should be informed that they should join the community properly, or leave. If we implement the above policy, it won't be necessary for those people to come and fight the GG people because all such discussion would be banned anyway.

    Generally I am quite happy with soft moderation policies, but these topics are just massively detrimental to an interesting forum and deserve a firmer hand.
    Irrelevant on further examination of the rest of the thread.

  4. #4
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Grizzly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The Bishopric of Utrecht
    Posts
    2,460
    Your signature does not mesh well with your post, Nathan :)
    Last edited by Grizzly; 23-01-2015 at 04:51 PM.

  5. #5
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    3,808
    Quote Originally Posted by HeadClot View Post
    .
    Lets end gamergate by talking out our differences and while still being excellent to each other.

    What harm could it do?
    .
    You don't negotiate with terrorists. That's the reason you won't see any established journos trying to actually engage with GG. Because they don't want to send the message that the horrendous tactics some of them employed will get you heard. And even more simply, a lot don't want to draw attention to themselves by engaging in the debate, because even if they're broadly sympathetic, if they disagree on a few points, they're likely to be 'punished'.

    Honestly, if I were a pro games journo right now, I'd give serious consideration to start looking for bribes a pnd pay-offs left, right and centre, in the knowledge that half my audience think I do any way, and if I'm found out the GGers will be so loud an obnoxious about it I'll look like a victim, while my editor will be far to afraid to fire me out of fear of being seen as pro-GG.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by deano2099 View Post
    Honestly, if I were a pro games journo right now, I'd give serious consideration to start looking for bribes a pnd pay-offs left, right and centre, in the knowledge that half my audience think I do any way, and if I'm found out the GGers will be so loud an obnoxious about it I'll look like a victim, while my editor will be far to afraid to fire me out of fear of being seen as pro-GG.
    I hope you never become a games journo then.
    I really can't understand the "everything sucks, I might as well add to it" mentality.

    As I said in the other thread, I think the biggest GG-related problem in this forum is not that there are any Gaters here (anymore), but that any attempt at discussing what GG pretends to be about is impossible i.e. you want to discuss actual ethics in games journalism, but "ethics in games journalism" is the GG catchphrase, so we can't discuss those. (if not as a result of moderation, then as a result of interference)

    As for what you can do about GG, well, I don't think there is much a forum can do, especially in the short term, other than sheltering its good members from "unexcellence". Internet trolling and harrassment are complex phenomena that has their roots in the real lives of people who have completely lost any sense of perspective (because that's the real problem: not that the information they're acting on is false, but that, even if it were true, the reaction is completely disproportionate)

    Us vs Them mentality is not something I particularly enjoy, but when "them" uses psychological violence against those who disagree, then yeah, I don't particularly care to engage with them.

  7. #7
    Lesser Hivemind Node strange headache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    618
    For starters one could stop to generalize and to oversimplify. There has been a lot of wrongdoing and misrepresentation on both sides of the fence. Thinking in absolutes by reducing a complex situation to "people who are absolutely right" versus "people who are absolutely wrong" only leads to a greater divide and more antagonistic behavior.

    The Germans tried to ignore and ridicule PEGIDA, it only made matters worse. I strongly disapprove of the xenophobic roots of the PEGIDA movement, but the only thing that can defuse this escalating situation is mutual dialogue, not vilification of the other.

    It's how the Germans dealt with the Wall and how they will have to deal with this new situation. It's the reason why the german media are slowly coming about by applying a nuanced approach. That's how you break down radicalized ideologies and world views.

    As I said in the other thread, I think the biggest GG-related problem in this forum is not that there are any Gaters here (anymore), but that any attempt at discussing what GG pretends to be about is impossible i.e. you want to discuss actual ethics in games journalism, but "ethics in games journalism" is the GG catchphrase, so we can't discuss those.
    I agree, because gosh darn the simple thought that there actually ARE people caring about ethics in games journalism has become impossible.

    Tolerating the intolerant has never resulted in more tolerance.
    Gandhi would disagree ;)

    Intolerance only breeds more intolerance, no matter its righteous content. Certainly there are limits, usually related to the freedom of action, but freedom of communication should never be limited. Like an untreated disease it will only linger and fester in the dark until it bursts open.

    Americans may laud Charlie Hebdo for being brave enough to publish cartoons ridiculing the Prophet Muhammad, but, if Ayaan Hirsi Ali is invited to campus, there are often calls to deny her a podium.

    So this might be a teachable moment. As we are mortified by the slaughter of those writers and editors in Paris, it’s a good time to come up with a less hypocritical approach to our own controversial figures, provocateurs and satirists.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/op...lie-hebdo.html

    What harm could it do?
    People could have their views challenged and may be forced to slightly revise them?
    Last edited by strange headache; 23-01-2015 at 07:15 PM.
    CÉTERVM CENSEÓ KOTAKVM ESSE DÉLÉNDAM.

  8. #8
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Heliocentric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    10,874
    Quote Originally Posted by deano2099 View Post
    You don't negotiate with terrorists.
    I guess the kill order on GGers was finally authorised. Because you don't need to negotiate with those you intend to kill, that's the exact reason refusing to negotiate with terrorists is viable.
    I'm failing to writing a blog, specifically about playing games the wrong way
    http://playingitwrong.wordpress.com/

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Lagoon West, Vermilion Sands
    Posts
    4,542
    Quote Originally Posted by Anthile View Post
    No, that's not how it works. Tolerating the intolerant has never resulted in more tolerance. That's a folly - the intent of the intolerant is always to silence tolerance.
    Gamersgate is not a pro-consumer movement. It never was, and it never will be. Perhaps some people who associate with them actually believe it is but that doesn't change matters. Maybe you should do your damn research before joining a movement. It's not that they have ever been subtle in their views.
    Where as Anti-GG are total angels I take it?

    Binary simplification of disparate groups is always the most amusing of qualities.

    From where I'm looking there are good people and bad people on either side of the barricades. This idea that somehow one is morally correct over the other is a fallacy.

    Also as an aside I don't remotely get why gamer's asking for more transparency in games journalism with regard to relationships and the issue of conflict of interest is somehow a bridge too far. It seems like a perfectly reasonable request from a consumer perspective.

    Despite all the hoopla several sites have drawn up clearer guidelines regarding their ethical policies and that is no bad thing.
    Last edited by Kadayi; 23-01-2015 at 07:46 PM.

  10. #10
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    3,808
    Quote Originally Posted by Kadayi View Post
    Where as Anti-GG are total angels I take it?
    No. But on one side you have primarily journalists who have their real names in the public domain and whose career and livelihood is dependant upon public perception of them. And on the other you have mostly anonymous posters who can walk away unharmed whenever they feel like it and be comfortable that they can't be traced back to their real-world identities.

    There's been some nasty tactics used by both sides for sure, but one side has a hell of a lot more at stake than the other.

    Also as an aside I don't remotely get why gamer's asking for more transparency in games journalism with regard to relationships and the issue of conflict of interest is somehow a bridge too far. It seems like a perfectly reasonable request from a consumer perspective.
    But what's the point? How does it help? If you don't trust the magazine/site editors to determine what is and isn't a conflict of interest then why do you trust them to disclose honestly if they say they'll do that?

    It creates a difficult position for writers too. Sometimes, a writer might not want his personal relationships out in public. That's his right, as a human being. Under the current system, he can tell his editor, and you rely on the editor to make the call as to what is or isn't okay for him to work on. If a site adopts a policy of total disclosure, said writer then decides that he's best off not disclosing the relationship to his editor, as they may be forced to reveal it under that policy. Said writer then also can't turn down work where he feels he has a conflict of interest without looking suspicious, so writes it anyway.

    I'd wager right now there are a lot of games writers involved in relationships with people working for games publishers. It's part of the social circle. Most likely don't plaster it all over Twitter because they like some privacy. In most case, they'll tell their editors, and their editors will make a call on what's suitable.

    GG seems to envisage a world where instead, the editors tell everyone who is with who and let people make their own minds up. Instead of the reality which is just that writers won't tell their editors in the first place.

  11. #11
    Lesser Hivemind Node strange headache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    618
    If you suspect a conflict of interest and don't want to disclose, write about something else. It's not like there is a shortage of possible stories out there. Gaming has become a huge cosmos.
    CÉTERVM CENSEÓ KOTAKVM ESSE DÉLÉNDAM.

  12. #12
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    209
    Quote Originally Posted by Quantacat
    All the GGers are dead. I killed em.
    The composition of this thread pretty well contradicts that.

    Quote Originally Posted by MelodyMeows View Post
    As for what you can do about GG, well, I don't think there is much a forum can do, especially in the short term, other than sheltering its good members from "unexcellence".
    There aren't any. Really. There are good people concerned about ethics in journalism, but they hate the GoatGropers as much as anyone. Pretending that it's an honest movement hijacked by extremists is playing into their bullshit timeline: It's a movement started by monsters (sangry onanist Eron Gjoni, the worst of 4chan) and promoted by monsters (Milo Whatshisname, AEI, Stormfront for god's sake) that managed to dupe some well-meaning, ignorant people. If they're still ignorant at this point, though, they're culpable for it.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Lagoon West, Vermilion Sands
    Posts
    4,542
    Quote Originally Posted by deano2099 View Post
    No. But on one side you have primarily journalists who have their real names in the public domain and whose career and livelihood is dependant upon public perception of them. And on the other you have mostly anonymous posters who can walk away unharmed whenever they feel like it and be comfortable that they can't be traced back to their real-world identities.

    There's been some nasty tactics used by both sides for sure, but one side has a hell of a lot more at stake than the other.
    It's a positive that you can acknowledge that there's been some unconscionable behaviour from the Anti - GG side as well (unlike some of your peers), however I'm less convinced by your assertions regarding the livelihood risk to those operating in game journalism. The endless spate of attack articles that have come out over GG kind of puts paid to the idea that anyone operating at that level feels financially threatened. If anything some people seem to be thriving off of the whole thing.

    But what's the point? How does it help? If you don't trust the magazine/site editors to determine what is and isn't a conflict of interest then why do you trust them to disclose honestly if they say they'll do that?
    I'm of the view that catalyst moments are a necessary part for the evolution of a field. Just as gaming is evolving and changing from fringe hobby to mainstream medium, so too is it necessary for game journalism to also evolve and mature as it becomes more common place. In large part we're in this transitional stage where in the field largely consists of people whose primary point of entry was through enthusiasm for gaming and the ability to stitch a few words together in a creative fashion. Few if any are actually all that capable of critical thought, operating to standards, have much ability at self reflection or are capable of not publicly acting out like complete infants on twitter etc at the drop of a hat. These are not bold pioneers, these are dinosaur hangovers from a more liberal sub-culture age who are in large part an embarrassment to the medium in the long term. No one is going to be holding up Colin Moriarty, Jim Sterling or Arthur Gies as paragons of gaming journalism in twenty years, like digital Eberts. The real journalists are the writers who likely emerge in the the next 10 - 15 years.

    It creates a difficult position for writers too. Sometimes, a writer might not want his personal relationships out in public. That's his right, as a human being. Under the current system, he can tell his editor, and you rely on the editor to make the call as to what is or isn't okay for him to work on. If a site adopts a policy of total disclosure, said writer then decides that he's best off not disclosing the relationship to his editor, as they may be forced to reveal it under that policy. Said writer then also can't turn down work where he feels he has a conflict of interest without looking suspicious, so writes it anyway.
    Then they're in the wrong career. Your endless attempts to somehow put the the needs (and I use needs loosely) of the privileged few above the wants of the many is becoming increasingly farcical. Conflict of interest and declaration is part and parcel of being a journalist. If that's not for them, then do something else.

    Quote Originally Posted by pepperfez View Post
    If they're still ignorant at this point, though, they're culpable for it.
    What's next on your proposals? Carpet bombing PAX East? Bound to get a few GGs there and as for the rest...well acceptable casualties.
    Last edited by Kadayi; 23-01-2015 at 09:57 PM.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by pepperfez View Post
    There aren't any. Really. There are good people concerned about ethics in journalism, but they hate the GoatGropers as much as anyone. Pretending that it's an honest movement hijacked by extremists is playing into their bullshit timeline: It's a movement started by monsters (sangry onanist Eron Gjoni, the worst of 4chan) and promoted by monsters (Milo Whatshisname, AEI, Stormfront for god's sake) that managed to dupe some well-meaning, ignorant people. If they're still ignorant at this point, though, they're culpable for it.
    I think you misunderstood my post.
    Perhaps my phrasing was ambiguous.
    "As for what you can do about GG, well, I don't think there is much a forum can do, especially in the short term, other than sheltering its good members (i.e. members of the forum, not of GG) from "unexcellence"."

    As for the rest, I broadly agree. Although I'm not entirely comfortable with the "culpable by ignorance" argument, especially in a situation such as this, that has become so radicalized that one side is rarely, if ever, exposed to information from the other side.

    We're all disinformed, some way or another. Nobody has time to follow EVERY debate as closely as they could. I'm not exposed to any GG sources of information, what if I am the one misguided by a false narrative? I made up my mind relatively early on and then stopped investigating the matter.
    Last edited by MelodyMeows; 23-01-2015 at 09:48 PM.

  15. #15
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    3,808
    Quote Originally Posted by strange headache View Post
    If you suspect a conflict of interest and don't want to disclose, write about something else. It's not like there is a shortage of possible stories out there. Gaming has become a huge cosmos.
    Works if you write for yourself or freelance. Not so much if you're on staff and you're on news that day. Your editor says "get a story up about the new Assassins Creed trailer" then you do it. It's your job, you don't get to say "no" without a damn good reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kadayi View Post
    It's a positive that you can acknowledge that there's been some unconscionable behaviour from the Anti - GG side as well (unlike some of your peers), however I'm less convinced by your assertions regarding the livelihood risk to those operating in game journalism. The endless spate of attack articles that have come out over GG kind of puts paid to the idea that anyone operating at that level feels financially threatened. If anything some people seem to be thriving off of the whole thing.
    There are writers that left the industry because they've been unable to deal with the crap. Jenn Frank comes to mind but fairly sure there are others. Not everyone had the mental fortitude to deal with what GG threw at them on a regular basis. It wasn't part of the job description. Sure, some people are converting it into hits (some by pandering to GG, some by going after them), but I don't think it's good for the industry that we get rid of everyone who can't just shake off attacks like that.

    Then they're in the wrong career. Your endless attempts to somehow put the the needs (and I use needs loosely) of the privileged few above the wants of the many is becoming increasingly farcical. Conflict of interest and declaration is part and parcel of being a journalist. If that's not for them, then do something else.
    Declaration privately to an editor, who then makes a decision. Not publicly to an internet who is morbidly fascinated about the sex lives of games writers. And if they don't disclose it, what are you going to do about it? You won't know. If journos have learned one thing from this recent one it's just to keep their private lives out of the public domain. Who is paying for the PIs to investigate every single games journo to see who they're dating?

    The current system is you disclose to an editor, said editor makes decision if you're suitable to cover the story. Under the GG proposed system, you declare publicly everywhere there might be any possible link. But what's gained from that? You're now deciding to trust individual writers, rather than editors, but how is that any better? They still need to be honest in their disclosure, if they are doing something dodgy, why would they be?

    Even if I accept this notion that there needs to be some sort of improvement, I don't know how relying on individual writers to disclose publicly helps?

  16. #16
    Lesser Hivemind Node strange headache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    618
    Works if you write for yourself or freelance. Not so much if you're on staff and you're on news that day. Your editor says "get a story up about the new Assassins Creed trailer" then you do it. It's your job, you don't get to say "no" without a damn good reason.
    I'd consider a conflict of interest a "damn good reason" and if the editor doesn't agree, then he's no good editor at all.
    CÉTERVM CENSEÓ KOTAKVM ESSE DÉLÉNDAM.

  17. #17
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    209
    Quote Originally Posted by Kadayi View Post
    What's next on your proposals? Carpet bombing PAX East? Bound to get a few GGs there and as for the rest...well acceptable casualties.
    Oh come off it. It's weird how often rejecting GoblinGong's legitimacy gets equated to mass murder, isn't it?

    Quote Originally Posted by MelodyMeows View Post
    We're all disinformed, some way or another. Nobody has time to follow EVERY debate as closely as they could. I'm not exposed to any GG sources of information, what if I am the one misguided by a false narrative? I made up my mind relatively early on and then stopped investigating the matter.
    (Sorry for the misreading; I should have known better.)

    I'd cut some slack for being hoodwinked a couple months ago, but people still seeing "GrieferGlobs has always been about ethics" as the dominant narrative are getting all of their knowledge from hateful loons. If someone chooses to only get news from Fox, Breitbart, and r/Redpill, they're making a choice about what they want to know and they can be held responsible for that. Particularly when we're talking about people posting on web fora; if you're taking a public stand, you're extra-responsible for knowing what you're talking about.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Lagoon West, Vermilion Sands
    Posts
    4,542
    Quote Originally Posted by deano2099 View Post
    There are writers that left the industry because they've been unable to deal with the crap. Jenn Frank comes to mind but fairly sure there are others. Not everyone had the mental fortitude to deal with what GG threw at them on a regular basis. It wasn't part of the job description. Sure, some people are converting it into hits (some by pandering to GG, some by going after them), but I don't think it's good for the industry that we get rid of everyone who can't just shake off attacks like that.
    I'm hardly seeing a mass exodus here.

    Declaration privately to an editor, who then makes a decision. Not publicly to an internet who is morbidly fascinated about the sex lives of games writers. And if they don't disclose it, what are you going to do about it? You won't know. If journos have learned one thing from this recent one it's just to keep their private lives out of the public domain. Who is paying for the PIs to investigate every single games journo to see who they're dating?

    The current system is you disclose to an editor, said editor makes decision if you're suitable to cover the story. Under the GG proposed system, you declare publicly everywhere there might be any possible link. But what's gained from that? You're now deciding to trust individual writers, rather than editors, but how is that any better? They still need to be honest in their disclosure, if they are doing something dodgy, why would they be?

    Even if I accept this notion that there needs to be some sort of improvement, I don't know how relying on individual writers to disclose publicly helps?
    Is there any end to the rabbit hole of convoluted scenarios you'll continue to present in order to try and somehow justify games journalism being the one journalistic arena which should be allowed to operate beyond freely conflict of interest? I can't say this fictive imagining does much to convince me in truth.

    Quote Originally Posted by pepperfez View Post
    Oh come off it. It's weird how often rejecting GoblinGong's legitimacy gets equated to mass murder, isn't it?
    Please, you've being demanding heads to roll throughout most of these threads Now's not the time to try and claim you're the centre of reasonableness in all things.
    Last edited by Kadayi; 23-01-2015 at 11:08 PM.

  19. #19
    Activated Node
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Utah, United States
    Posts
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by Anthile View Post
    No, that's not how it works. Tolerating the intolerant has never resulted in more tolerance. That's a folly - the intent of the intolerant is always to silence tolerance.
    Gamersgate is not a pro-consumer movement. It never was, and it never will be. Perhaps some people who associate with them actually believe it is but that doesn't change matters. Maybe you should do your damn research before joining a movement. It's not that they have ever been subtle in their views.
    Hey Anthile thanks for the reply,

    Here is the problem - GamerGate is quickly approaching subculture status if not already. As for doing my research on Gamergate already done. I have talked to people and read sites about the matter. Same goes with Anti-Gamergate. I would not mind sharing my research.

    Once it hits subculture status we have hit the point of no return.

    Am I a part of Gamergate? No. Am I a part of Anti-Gamergate? No. TBH - I am Neutral on this whole thing. I am just tired of things that I love being ripped apart. Which is why I made this post. We need to set our differences aside and just talk about the problem.

    Also you got to remember that anyone can use the Gamergate hashtag. Anyone can dox and then say gamergate did it or anti-Gamergate did it.

    So please do not be so quick to judge/Condemn when someone posts a thread on "How to stop Gamergate".

    I just posted my opinion.

    - HeadClot

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Lagoon West, Vermilion Sands
    Posts
    4,542
    Quote Originally Posted by HeadClot View Post
    Here is the problem - GamerGate is quickly approaching subculture status if not already. As for doing my research on Gamergate already done. I have talked to people and read sites about the matter. Same goes with Anti-Gamergate. I would not mind sharing my research.

    Once it hits subculture status we have hit the point of no return.
    Indeed. What is it now 6 months or so? And despite media campaigns and the like, if anything it seems to be growing. This idea that somehow it can be hidden away or ignored like an inconvenient truth is a fallacy.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •